Case law: L Chandra Kumar v Union of India
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Facts:
The case challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments made to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which barred the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 136 to hear service-related disputes of government employees, which were instead to be decided by the newly created Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Issues:
Whether the ouster of High Courts’ and Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 136 to hear service matters disputes was constitutional.
Whether the tribunals (CAT) have the power of judicial review.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Parliament cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 136 when it comes to enforcing fundamental rights and constitutional validity.
The Court ruled that administrative tribunals have the power to decide disputes but cannot oust the power of judicial review of High Courts and the Supreme Court. Thus, the tribunal is not a substitute but an alternative forum.
Key Points:
Judicial review under Articles 226 and 136 is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The right to approach the High Court under Article 226 cannot be ousted.
Administrative Tribunals can decide disputes but their decisions are subject to judicial review.
2. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Facts:
This is the foundational case that established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Issues:
Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited.
Judgment:
The Court held that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution but it cannot alter the "basic structure" or "basic features" of the Constitution. Fundamental rights and judicial review are part of this basic structure.
Significance:
The doctrine limits Parliament’s power and protects judicial review, which L. Chandra Kumar relied on heavily.
3. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441
Facts:
The case concerned the independence of the judiciary and whether the Parliamentary Acts affecting appointment and transfer of Supreme Court and High Court judges were constitutional.
Issues:
Whether the changes in the appointment and transfer of judges were constitutional.
Judgment:
The Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine and stated that independence of the judiciary is part of the basic structure, emphasizing judicial review’s importance.
Relation to Chandra Kumar:
Reinforces the principle that the judiciary’s power of review cannot be compromised, supporting the invalidation of amendments ousting High Courts’ jurisdiction.
4. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts:
The case discussed the extent of the power of administrative tribunals and their decisions.
Issues:
Whether the tribunal’s decision can be questioned and to what extent judicial review applies.
Judgment:
It was held that tribunals are meant to provide speedy justice but their orders are subject to judicial review. Tribunals cannot act as substitutes for courts but as alternative forums.
Significance:
Supports the principle in Chandra Kumar about the balance between tribunals and courts.
5. State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967) 2 SCR 742
Facts:
This case dealt with the power of High Courts under Article 226.
Issues:
Whether High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction even when an alternative remedy is available.
Judgment:
The Court held that High Courts have wide jurisdiction under Article 226, which can be exercised unless the statute expressly or impliedly excludes it.
Relation to Chandra Kumar:
Reinforces the idea that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be lightly ousted by the creation of tribunals unless there is clear legislative intent.
Summary:
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | Judicial review is part of the basic structure; tribunals cannot oust High Courts/Supreme Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 136. |
| Keshavananda Bharati v. Kerala | Basic Structure Doctrine—limits constitutional amendments including judicial review. |
| SC Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. UOI | Judicial independence is part of the basic structure. |
| Union of India v. R. Gandhi | Tribunals' decisions subject to judicial review; cannot replace courts. |
| State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei | High Courts' writ jurisdiction is wide and not easily excluded. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments